Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,628 Year: 4,885/9,624 Month: 233/427 Week: 43/103 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hello everyone
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1529 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 256 of 380 (712939)
12-08-2013 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by dwise1
12-08-2013 3:29 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
Psychoanalyzing your opponent is extremely bad form. What gall. And you don't even give enough information for me to defend myself.
And respect is a position one takes toward others as a matter of being a human being. You all need a good slap upside the head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by dwise1, posted 12-08-2013 3:29 PM dwise1 has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1529 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 257 of 380 (712941)
12-08-2013 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by xongsmith
12-08-2013 4:40 AM


Re: have mercy
Thanks, I appreciate your concern, I really do, it's the most thoughtful thing that's ever happened on one of these threads.
However, while I may lose it from time to time it doesn't last, and I know with whom I have to deal here. EvC is really just the land of the Barbarians and the Vandals -- well what should one expect of people who think they are descended from animals?*_ -- though sometimes I forget that and make the mistake of thinking someone here might actually consider what I'm saying instead of throwing out their irrelevant kneejerk answers conditioned by their brainwashing at school.
*Frankly, animals are usually nicer and better behaved. Smarter too.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by xongsmith, posted 12-08-2013 4:40 AM xongsmith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by jar, posted 12-08-2013 5:00 PM Faith has not replied

Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 3082 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(5)
Message 258 of 380 (712942)
12-08-2013 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Faith
12-08-2013 4:17 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
I have given ample support, but you are incapable of following the argument.
I am 100% certain this is false. Please feel free to link the messages in which you have provided "ample support". Note that your repeated assertions don not constitute such support; you need to provide some citations here.
The difference you are harping on is irrelevant to my point, which is that in either case the grains were transported and deposited in their present location where they lithified, they could not possibly have been formed there
You seem to be loosing your train of thought. You started with the position that what geologists identify as desert deposits are really the result of the Flood. I provided evidence that supports the conclusion of aeolian deposition. This is not at all irrelevant. Now, according to the above quote, your point is that the grains weren't formed in situ. Talk about irrelevant; I never argued that they were. The point is that there are rock strata that contain features that are characteristic of aeolian deposition. Do you understand that for your Flood model to be true we should find no evidence of aeolian depositional environments?Put simply, I have provided evidence that at least some of the rock record was deposited in a terrestrial, not aqueous, setting and this refutes the assertion that the rock record is the product of the Flood.
Again your disquisition on Aeolian deposits is irrelevant since there is no way they could have formed in situ
First, this doesn't make any sense. Of course the deposits formed in situ. Perhaps you're referring to the fact that the individual grains were not formed in situ, a point which would be truly irrelevant. Again, my argument is not that the Flood didn't happen because aeolian strata were deposited in situ. My argument is that we have diagnostic features that characterize aeolian deposits and allow us to distinguish them from aqueous deposits. The fact that we can identify aeolian deposits refutes your contention that all strata were deposited aqueously during the Flood.
If you recognized the fact that the actual presentation of the strata absolutely destroys your theory, the question about dinosaurs on nests would be irrelevant
I don't recognize this "fact" because it is no more than a baseless assertion you keep repeating. Provide some evidence for this claim and I will take it seriously. So far all you've done is say "Strata have flat contacts so the must have been layed down by the Flood". Provide evidence that the nature of the strata a) disprove non-Flood models and b)support a Flood model. You haven't (and I daresay won't) provided such evidence. So again, what about that dinosaur on its nest? How does that square with the Flood? Try less evasive handwaving and more explaining.
I do believe the Flood is the only reasonable explanation for the presentation of the strata, the evolutionist explanation is ridiculous as I have shown.
You have to no degree shown this. Again, link me to the messages in which you present your compelling evidence. You have not supported the statement that the Flood is a reasonable explanation for the rock record nor the statement that the "evolutionist" explanation is wrong.
respect is a position one takes toward others as a matter of being a human being. You all need a good slap upside the head.
So you're being respectful of fellow human beings when you repeatedly refer to proponents of evolution as idiots? Interesting. Again, look at that thread on cetacean limbs and you will see that respect is given to Aaron because he tries to support his arguments. All you've done is claim you're right without ever citing anything beyond your own assertions and this is what makes you the target of scorn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 4:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 5:58 PM Atheos canadensis has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34059
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 259 of 380 (712943)
12-08-2013 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Faith
12-08-2013 4:56 PM


Re: have mercy
EvC is really just the land of the Barbarians and the Vandals -- well what should one expect of people who think they are descended from animals?
Too funny.
You are an animal Faith. You are descended from animals. If you ever had children, they would be animals.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 4:56 PM Faith has not replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9531
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


(2)
Message 260 of 380 (712944)
12-08-2013 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Faith
12-08-2013 4:14 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
Faith writes:
I guess you simply have the usual learned inability to see what's wrong with the idea of a landscape being encased in solid rock, a whole stack of them yet, all different kinds of rock too. No problem for the evolutionist mind of course, reality is never a challenge.
Tiny, weeny little point here Faith that I wouldn't normally bother about, but when you're talking about rocks, it's geologists not 'evolutionists' you have a problem with.
I only mention it because you tend to think that 'evolutionist' is a synonym or satan so I'd just like you to spread the evil around a bit.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 4:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 6:15 PM Tangle has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1529 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 261 of 380 (712947)
12-08-2013 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Atheos canadensis
12-08-2013 4:59 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
you need to provide some citations here.
I'm sorry, the argument is a matter of logic and honest observation, not citations.
The difference you are harping on is irrelevant to my point, which is that in either case the grains were transported and deposited in their present location where they lithified, they could not possibly have been formed there
You seem to be loosing your train of thought. You started with the position that what geologists identify as desert deposits are really the result of the Flood. I provided evidence that supports the conclusion of aeolian deposition.
No, my point was that a rock can't be a landscape. I believe it was deposited by the Flood, yes, but my main point was that if you look at the rock and its contents reason should tell you the theory that it was once a desert landscape, which is what "desert deposits" implies, is ridiculous.
This is not at all irrelevant. Now, according to the above quote, your point is that the grains weren't formed in situ. Talk about irrelevant; I never argued that they were.
I see, then perhaps you are open to the possibility that they were transported on currents or waves of the Flood waters.
The point is that there are rock strata that contain features that are characteristic of aeolian deposition. Do you understand that for your Flood model to be true we should find no evidence of aeolian depositional environments?
No, I have no idea why we shouldn't. But a rock is NOT a "depositional environment" except in Evo Fantasyland.
Put simply, I have provided evidence that at least some of the rock record was deposited in a terrestrial, not aqueous, setting and this refutes the assertion that the rock record is the product of the Flood.
If you are talking about the shape of the grains there is no reason to think they weren't shaped in a terrestrial setting and transported to their present location where they were obviously deposited by water in their current horizontal layered condition. Wind won't layer things that way, nor will normal weathering, nor erosion, nor normal processes of any kind that we observe in the world today. It would take a massive amount of water to form the strata with their separated sediments in horizontal layers and their familially assembled fossil contents. Sorry, no citations, just observation.
Of course the deposits formed in situ. Perhaps you're referring to the fact that the individual grains were not formed in situ, a point which would be truly irrelevant.
OK, sorry if I misspoke, yes of course I mean the GRAINS were not formed in situ.
Again, my argument is not that the Flood didn't happen because aeolian strata were deposited in situ. My argument is that we have diagnostic features that characterize aeolian deposits and allow us to distinguish them from aqueous deposits. The fact that we can identify aeolian deposits refutes your contention that all strata were deposited aqueously during the Flood.
You can identify aeolian SHAPING of the grains, but you can't tell where they were shaped. If the already-shaped grains were more or less passively carried in the water to their current location your diagnoses would not detect that. There are, however, creationist studies that refute the claim that you can tell the difference as you claim. I doubt I'm going to bother to go look them up though because as I've said, I believe the actual condition and appearance of the rock is sufficient proof that we cannot possibly be talking about former landscapes, desert landscape, any kind of landscape, that existed in some former time period. The theory is ridiculous. So whatever shaped the grains is irrelevant.
... . So far all you've done is say "Strata have flat contacts so the must have been layed down by the Flood".
Laid, not layed. Well, I think that's pretty obvious to an honest observer, but actually my main point was that there is no way they represent landscapes, which is even more obvious. Really, SOOOOOOO obvious. Really.
Provide evidence that the nature of the strata a) disprove non-Flood models and b)support a Flood model. You haven't (and I daresay won't) provided such evidence.
I do wish you would stand back from a nice view of the strata, say in a wall of the Grand Canyon from some distance for starters. If you distrust photographs, get yourself a chair and a thermos of coffee, and since it's winter probably some warm clothes, and sit there on the canyon rim thinking about those strata for a LOOOOOOOOONNNNNG time. Take some notes on what you see. Just your observations, not your theory. You know, reddish layer beneath whitish layer beneath grayish layer or whatever, relative height, interface line sharp etc. Consider the absurdity of the theory that they represent time periods with identifiable "horizons" and "landscapes."
It don't take no CITATIONS, man, it takes THINKING.
So you're being respectful of fellow human beings when you repeatedly refer to proponents of evolution as idiots?
No, I reverted to my own barbarian past, sorry. But I will continue to refer to the THEORY as idiotic. Because it is.
I feel sorry for people who try to address these things with scientific citations when it's so simply a matter of clearheaded observation.
By the way I've said a lot about the Flood on other threads, and about the formation fo the Grand Canyon, and I don't care to repeat it all here. And I don't care what you think about it either.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-08-2013 4:59 PM Atheos canadensis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-08-2013 10:20 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1529 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 262 of 380 (712948)
12-08-2013 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Tangle
12-08-2013 5:33 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
Yeah I know it's geologists, but the thing is the geologists and the evolutionists are in cahoots about the ridiculous interpretation of the layers and their fossil contents, and they ARE evolutionists too you now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Tangle, posted 12-08-2013 5:33 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Tangle, posted 12-09-2013 2:18 AM Faith has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 263 of 380 (712955)
12-08-2013 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Faith
12-08-2013 11:59 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
They lie in the cross bedded pattern when heaped together because of their individual shape ...
No.
See, this is why you should look at stuff, like geologists do, instead of making stuff up, like creationists do.
There is no way a slab of rock, sandstone or any other, could be the record of a former landscape with its supposed flora and fauna.
There is actually a way. It involves the lithification of sediment. That would explain why sedimentary rock looks just like lithified sediment. So for example one reason why this looks just like a section of beach could be because it is in fact a section of beach.
Though I await your bizarre otherworldly explanation with interest. Same with this:
This would be one of those flat layers you were talking about, yes? In what sense is it flat?
Long time spans are not going to layer sediments to such prodigious length and breadth as we actually see.
We can see, right now sediments being deposited over prodigious breadths --- or rather geologists can see this 'cos they actually look at sediments rather than making up dumb crap like you do. Clearly if this deposition went on for a long time, this would also produce prodigious depth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 11:59 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 9:31 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1529 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 264 of 380 (712958)
12-08-2013 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Dr Adequate
12-08-2013 8:39 PM


Re: uniformitarianism / strata; GC
That doesn't look like a section of beach to me, and I'm talking about flat to the naked eye, small narrow rivulets not changing that fact. Flat ENOUGH, Dr. A., but you don't care I'm sure. Assuming that tilted rock is a piece of a layer, which you don't explain. And many of the strata are very very flat, tabletop flat with knife-edge close contact between them. Which you can SEE WITH THE NAKED EYE in, say, a wall of the Grand Canyon. I don't expect to answer everything, I just go back to the fact that it's obvious from the appearance of the stack of strata that they couldn't be time periods. Obvious. So your interpretation is wrong.
And I'd like to remind you about the Grand Canyon too, the implication of which always escapes you, but it's a killer for the theory of successive long ages: ALL those strata were in place before that canyon was cut. SEE??? LOOK!!! And not just those to the rim of that particular canyon, either, which is the Permian, but all those that were originally stacked above the canyon too in the same event, all the way to the height of the top layer of the Grand Staircase to the North. That's something like a depth of two miles of the strata covering an area of thousands of square miles.
ALL of that must have been laid down in a very short period of time, a rather rapid sequence I suspect, days, weeks, months? and THEN the Canyon was cut, THEN the Staircase was cut etc etc. THEN!!! Nothing happened to the strata before, there were no canyons cut, there wasn't even anything you could call erosion, some rivulets, some runoff between the layers, some disturbances of a very minor sort, nothing like what happens on the surface of the earth.
You can tell by LOOKING AT THE WALLS OF THE GC.
I'd ask you to think about the implications of that but you won't or you don't know how because you're blinded by theory. I'll get you an urn of coffee if you'll go sit on the canyon rim and contemplate the reality before you, try to get the cobwebs out of your brain and try to be honest for a change.
First you will object that not ALL the length of the canyon walls is so horizontal. So think about the horizontal parts.
You will then of course change the subject to the foundation rocks. I've given you my theory about those too, but let's pretend that they were a separate event and were already there when the rest of the stack was laid down. They weren't, they were all part of the same event, and I disagree with most creationists about that, but let's pretend they were already there, you know, the Great Unconformity etc. You STILL have to reckon with the fact that the rest of the stack above that, which supposedly represents -- gee I forget, a billion years or so? -- was laid down in succession from that point to the height of the Grand Staircase, BEFORE any of the canyons or other formations were cut.
THINK ABOUT IT!
But I won't hold my breath.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-08-2013 8:39 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by foreveryoung, posted 12-08-2013 10:52 PM Faith has replied
 Message 267 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-08-2013 11:08 PM Faith has replied

Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 3082 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(1)
Message 265 of 380 (712963)
12-08-2013 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Faith
12-08-2013 5:58 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
Heh, I see now why you get no respect here. You are posting on a forum whose rules explicitly state that
quote:
Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions
So when you make posts that are merely "bare assertions" without either "evidence or reasoned argumentation" you are obviously not going to get respect from people who take the time to support their points. Simply saying that your point is so obviously right that you don't need to support it is laughable. Providing credible citations that corroborates your statements demonstrates that your "logic and honest observation" are actually logical and honest. You're basically saying that your lack of supporting points is actually a laudable quality in your arguments. And then you get all huffy about how people don't take you seriously. You say things like this:
my main point was that if you look at the rock and its contents reason should tell you the theory that it was once a desert landscape, which is what "desert deposits" implies, is ridiculous
And then you expect me to just accept that as a logical and honest assessment because you say so? Please explain what about the rocks' contents prove that it must be a flood deposit. Is it the dinosaur on its nest? The one that "shows no evidence of transportation after death" (Norell et al 1995)? How do such contents support the hypothesis of the Flood depositing the surrounding sediment? How do such contents prove ridiculous the conclusion that the rocks record the product of aeolian, not aqueous deposition? I know you won't (and can't) provide citations for your assertions, but you haven't even been able to explain your reasoning.
I see, then perhaps you are open to the possibility that they were transported on currents or waves of the Flood waters.
It is of course conceivable that grains weathered in a desert environment could be redeposited elsewhere by water. But when you try to argue that such reworked sediments also contain a clearly in situ dinosaur on a nest it strains credulity that they were deposited in the Flood. Add to this the bedforms (not grain weathering pattern) described in the paper I linked that are found only in aeolian deposits and your fantasy becomes less plausible still. Plus there's the angle of repose, which you haven't been able to explain away. Sand deposited in dry conditions has a 34 degree angle of repose. Sand deposited in water has a 45 degree angle of repose. Therefore when we find cross-bedded sand with a 34 degree angle of repose we can logically conclude that the sand was deposited under aeolian conditions, not aqueous conditions. Unless you're prepared to argue that physical law operated differently at the time of the Flood and allowed wet sand to be deposited with an angle of repose characteristic of dry sand. You'll have to argue that certain deposits are composed of grains that display signs of aeolian weathering and are bedded in a way characteristic of aeolian environments and contain in situ terrestrial fossils all by coincidence because they are really reworked sediments deposited by the Flood? Is that the logic that you feel is so iron-clad that you don't need to provide citations? I have provided sources that corroborate my statement that aeolian deposits are identifiable and present in the rock record. The best you can manage is this:
There are, however, creationist studies that refute the claim that you can tell the difference as you claim. I doubt I'm going to bother to go look them up though
Wow, what a shock. You not providing a source for your assertions?
But a rock is NOT a "depositional environment" except in Evo Fantasyland.
Do you realize you're contradicting yourself? If a rock does not record a depositional environment then how can it also be evidence of the Flood? You seem to be making the (at least to me) novel argument that the rock record contains no evidence of any depositional environments (false) but that it shows the depositional environment was the Flood (false and contradictory).
I feel sorry for people who try to address these things with scientific citations when it's so simply a matter of clearheaded observation.
Maybe it's because I'm new, but I can't believe you're really trying to pass off your complete lack of support for your assertions as a virtue.
I see you've also abandoned your contention that it is their relative positions in the rock record that allow us to group fossils in a way that supports evolution. This is good because any amount of honest research would tell you that the organisms' morphologies are generally much more important for assessing relatedness than are their relative positions. You would then be stuck with going to the thread I started and providing your answer to the question there and I suspect, based on the caliber of your posts thus far, that you would that task a bit beyond your ability.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 5:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 11:50 PM Atheos canadensis has not replied

foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 667 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


(1)
Message 266 of 380 (712968)
12-08-2013 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Faith
12-08-2013 9:31 PM


Re: uniformitarianism / strata; GC
faith writes:
That doesn't look like a section of beach to me, and I'm talking about flat to the naked eye, small narrow rivulets not changing that fact.
How could that be anything else but the lithified remains of an ancient beach?
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 9:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 12:26 AM foreveryoung has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 267 of 380 (712970)
12-08-2013 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Faith
12-08-2013 9:31 PM


Re: uniformitarianism / strata; GC
That doesn't look like a section of beach to me, and I'm talking about flat to the naked eye, small narrow rivulets not changing that fact.
Have you really never seen a beach?
Here are some pictures of what a beach looks like, so you'll recognize one if you ever see one.
Now you know what a beach looks like, here are some rocks.
ALL of that must have been laid down in a very short period of time, a rather rapid sequence I suspect, days, weeks, months? and THEN the Canyon was cut, THEN the Staircase was cut etc etc. THEN!!! Nothing happened to the strata before, there were no canyons cut, there wasn't even anything you could call erosion, some rivulets, some runoff between the layers, some disturbances of a very minor sort, nothing like what happens on the surface of the earth.
You can tell by LOOKING AT THE WALLS OF THE GC.
Thing is, geologists, who have looked at the walls of the GC, say that this is bollocks, and that they can clearly identify erosional surfaces. So can I, by looking at photographs.
I'd ask you to think about the implications of that but you won't or you don't know how because you're blinded by theory.
The implications of the crap you made up in your head are not so interesting as the implications of real things that actually exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 9:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 12:00 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 12:06 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 268 of 380 (712971)
12-08-2013 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Faith
12-08-2013 4:14 PM


Clash Of Faiths
I guess you simply have the usual learned inability to see what's wrong with the idea of a landscape being encased in solid rock, a whole stack of them yet, all different kinds of rock too.
Funnny thing, there's another creationist on these forums, also called Faith, perhaps you've met her, who insisted (on this thread) that the layers are all the same.
Other Faith writes:
There is no difference in their appearance one from another when you see a deep stack of them, such as in the Grand Canyon especially where the stack is a mile deep.
Now she seemed to think that this was an argument against reality-based geology, writing:
Other Faith writes:
Different mechanisms for the formation of identical layers makes no sense.
If you should ever meet her, perhaps you could explain to her that I was right, that the different formations are in fact "all different" as you say, and not "identical" and having "no difference in their appearance" as she said; and that her argument against real geology therefore fails --- as I told her at the time. It's rare to find you agreeing with me, but since you do we can unite in putting this Faith person in her place.
Edited by Admin, : Remove text improperly inserted by board software.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 4:14 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1529 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 269 of 380 (712973)
12-08-2013 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Atheos canadensis
12-08-2013 10:20 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
Oh I've given sufficient support, it's called Reasoned Argument based on Simple Observation which any idiot could do if they weren't blinded by theory. You want me to post pictures of the Grand Canyon too? Would that help?
Just think about what I've said (It's obvious you can't, won't, whatever, maybe I didn't get it worded quite right, or maybe you just have a brain cramp from all your theoretical assumptions). But you don't need more information than I've given to think about what I'm claiming. It's all there, all the information you need to realize the theories of the old earth and the strata as representing long periods of time are a laughable delusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-08-2013 10:20 PM Atheos canadensis has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1529 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 270 of 380 (712974)
12-09-2013 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Dr Adequate
12-08-2013 11:08 PM


Re: uniformitarianism / strata; GC
I've been on many beaches, they don't look like that. But it doesn't matter. All you are talking about is what happens to sand under certain wet conditions. There was sand transported in the very wet conditions of the Flood that we assume rose and fell as waves do. So your "beach" affects absolutely nothing I've said.
Again, as I keep saying, it doesn't really matter, it's all a bunch of red herrings, because the reality of the strata, the different sediments, the horizontality of the layers, the lack of anything like erosion of the sort we see on the surface of the earth, let alone a humongous canyon before they were all in place, the way the fossils are grouped and tumbled within the rocks, and so on and so forth, which I've been trying to bring to your attention, absolutely defeats the idea of long periods of time per layer.
Again, if you would just think about what I'm pointing out you would have to recognize that your theories are delusional. I'm sure that's why you won't think about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-08-2013 11:08 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-09-2013 10:13 AM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024